1.
As a experimented professor of homeopathic therapeutics & homeopathic medicine since 25 years ago,and consagrated author of dozen best sellers books on Homeopathy and Orthomolecular therapy on sale in Brazil and Portugal..

I request serious pay attention in good sense about my friendly advice and response about recurrent doubts and attacks on Homeopahty nowadys as a NOT YET comproved medical therapeutics.

I make very clear reaching to be straight to the point on the matter, that UNLESS new medical and advanced research b launched and be leaded by recogniced top medical authorities onn the matter in Europe...

(Ex:Experimental Medicine Center of University of Paris 13-Nord-Bobigny-France)

In search of biological basis of the theorical and pratical models of mechanism of absorption by the human cell´s mithocondria of the energetic quantum of high diluted homeopathics medicines..

Prescribed nowadays worldwide by medical physicians,as a biogical background ...

NOTHING seriously maybe be idscussed and come to a REAL FINAL CONCLUSION about this main question...

And this same lab. medical experiment on Homeopathy should be reproductable by all the international scientific medical community also!!!

It is remarkable to make this CHALLENGER for all people and medical authorities concerned to this matter about Homeopaty reality of nowadays...

And for a better information for all readers..

Homeopathy therapeutics advances naturally and now we have available the brand news micro-immonotheraputics homeopathic pharmacals developed by Prof.Jenaer,MD, from Belgium,with basis on the fantastic Microimmuotherapeutics,that are manufactured by LABO LIFE LAB.in Namur,Belgium...

And on legal sale all over Europe and licensed by several european health authorities of EEC, as a real & valuable alternative pharmacal therapeutics in treatments of auto-immune diseases and etc, not yet cured by official medicine as well...

Without this final tests anout the action of high diluted homeopathic pharmacals action trough the human cell´s mithocondria..

And its real existence biological phenomena..

NOTHING it will be acceptable on Homeopathy by world scientific community; that by other side, insists to make hard atttacks on Homeopathy regarding the failed "Water Memory" theory,defended by the proeminent,respectable and late Prof.Jacques Benveniste,MD, in France last century.

AN UNFORTUNATELY NOT COMPROVED YET by medical update biotechnology of nowadays..

This is a real challenger to be launched!!!!

Let us expect and wait as soon as possible for a final answer at all.

Regards

Prof.Paulo de Lacerda

Posted at 10:00AM on Aug 8th 2007 by prof.paulo de lacerda

2. I keep seeing "Dr." Collins quoting that paragon of science, Quackwatch. Wow, what a reliable source, or is it?

DEBUNKING “QUACKWATCH”:

In many of her blogs Kristina Collins warns vociferously against alternative treatments, often citing points of logic, which is reasonable, or quoting or referring to the website “Quackwatch” as a reasonable and reliable source of information which, unfortunately, is not. Despite correspondence [yes I am one of the fallacious people she doesn’t name in her (mendacious?) essay] where I point this out to her, she continues to source them. What ax is being ground here?

In the following paragraphs I will make a few points about alternative treatments and then, like a good detective, I will follow the money. Unlike Kristina, I plan on sourcing reliable sources.

In Natural Health, Natural Medicine , Dr. Andrew Weil, a graduate of Harvard Medical School, observes that conventional allopathic medicine excels at managing trauma, surgical emergencies, or acute bacterial infections, but it fails in the treatment of chronic degenerative disease, cancer, asthma, allergy, diabetes, lupus, mental illness, as well as other health problems.

A study published, in 1998 in The Journal of the American Medical association (JAMA), and in other reliable sources, reveal the failure of scientific medicine that has become itself a leading cause of death. The statistical data of medicine-induced iatrogenic injuries show that in the USA alone more people die of properly prescribed medications each year than the number of Americans killed in the entire Vietnam War.

Furthermore, each year thousands of people perish because of diagnostic mistakes, equipment failure, infected hospitals, mismatching blood types, pharmaceutical errors and sham surgeries. In regard to the latter, a Congressional Subcommittee in the 1970s estimated that out of the over 20 million operations carried out in the USA every year, the annual number of unnecessary operations amounts to 2.4 million, resulting in 12,000 lost lives. There is no particular reason to believe that the situation today is better.

Thus, Voltaire’s remark about the nescience of doctors remains to valid:” Physicians pour drugs of which they know little, to cure diseases of which they know less, into humans of which they know nothing”. Robert Mendelsohn, M.D.,a former professor of medicine at the University of Illinois and chairman of medical licensing committee of that State, says that doctors “continue to treat their patients with their own forms of unscientific quackery, which won’t stand up to the test of controlled studies”.

This is NOT Doctor’s pushing so-called alternative treatments on their patient’s but rather them practicing their own pet theories such as adopting a wait and see attitude about calcium masses in breast tissue. Sound familiar Kristina?

Despite the hard work and honest efforts of many medical doctors to cure people of their ailments the systemic flaws of allopathic medicine predispose it to fail in providing optimal health care. Allopathic medicine is inherently sickness oriented; diagnose the symptoms, and prescribe a cure. It pays only a lip service to prevention because it has no real inherent interest in enduring health. The word ‘doctor’ connotes teacher. Yet doctors seldom teach people how to live in a healthy manner. The vested interests of mainstream medicine lie beyond the ideal of building up high level of well being in people. Medicine is a huge business. Through the institutionalized malpractice of conventional medicine, doctors become drug-pushers for pharmaceutical companies that market their products not to promote health but to satisfy their shareholders. This is especially true of Quackwatch’s chief Quackpot, Stephen Barrett.

Now let’s get to the point of this article. Stephen Barrett, a former medical doctor who states his current licence status as “retired”, operates “Quackwatch” that slanders those he is paid to disagree with. “Dr.” Barrett’s written attacks against alternative medicine and practitioners suffer from a severe case of tunnel vision. His web site strives to brainwash the public and to install blind faith in the infallible authority of allopathic medicine. “Quackwatch” arrogantly pretends to hold a monopoly over the truth. It is exactly this sort of attitude against which Einstein warns in Ideas and Opinions: “Schools may interfere with the development of inward freedom through authoritarian influences”. He stresses that we are exposed to too much education, and that “the development of science and of the creative activities of the spirit “ requires inward freedom , “the independence of thought from the restrictions of authoritarian and social prejudices”.

Mr. Barrett’s “Quackwatch” misleads the public. His method of data selection is guided by the principle of not letting the facts interfere with his biased judgement of wholistic therapies. He is not known to have training in natural medicine, herbalism, chiropractic, ayurveda, yoga, acupuncture, homeopathy, or other alternative health care modalities, but nevertheless he dismisses all non allopathic practices as frauds. Giving his “expert” opinion concerning things that he demonstrates no expertise in, naturally, qualifies him as a “quackpot.”
Dated December 22, 1999, the Harvard affiliated Massachusetts General Hospital’s Neurology Web Forum published on the Internet an article under the title :”PAC” Money for “quackwatch”. It reveals that “the FDA and the Pharmaceutical Advertising Counsel (“PAC”), which represents some 35 major drug companies, have formed and co-founded a corporation under a joint letterhead, calling itself the National Council Against Health Fraud (“NCAHF”).” Stephen Barrett, MD, who publishes “Quackwatch” online, William Jarvis, MD, and others, are paid by PAC “ to publicly discredit as unscientific or unknown any of all viable herbs, vitamins, homeopathic remedies or non-allopathic therapies, particularly those that are proven to have the most promise and present the greatest threat to the PAC members”.

What a great source you cite Kristina.

Recently Mr. Barrett lost yet another frivolous court case he filed against a legitimately licensed practitioner of medicine. He has lost the 40 cases he has brought. He has been charged with racketeering.

In a recent court case brought by Mr. Barrett charging defamation against Dr. Ted Koren the following information was obtained from Mr. Barrett under examination before the judge threw the case out for lack of foundation.At trial, under a heated cross-examination by lawyer Carlos Negrete, Barrett conceded that he was not a Medical Board Certified psychiatrist because he had failed the certification exam. This was a major revelation since Barrett had provided supposed expert testimony as a psychiatrist and had testified in numerous court cases. Barrett also had said that he was a legal expert even though he had no formal legal training. The most damning testimony before the jury, under the intense cross-examination by Negrete, was that Barrett had filed similar defamation lawsuits against 40 people across the country within the past few years and had not won one single one at trial.

So here is “quackwatch.” A drug industry shill bought and paid for who has lied under oath. A man who could not even pass his board certification exam. I am not even sure if he ever treated patients of if he is just a bitter failed man who stumbled upon a way to make his bias pay off for him.

In correspondence I have requested that you stop citing Quackwatch as a reliable source of information on alternative therapies especially on the subject of cancer. Your point that alternative therapies need to be warned and investigated is valid but reveals an ignorance regarding allopathic therapies and the danger they can pose. It also legitimizes Quackwatch as a trustworthy source which it surely isn’t. If you are going to call the pot black Kristina, perhaps you shouldn’t be citing the biggest kettle on the stove.

Your continued intransigence about citing Quackwatch must bring the question about your own agenda and funding. One is known by the company one keeps.

Posted at 5:15AM on Sep 3rd 2007 by jeff Friesen

3. http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2003/07/10/quackbusters_lose_against_homeopathy.htm

http://www.canlyme.com/quackwatch.html

Posted at 12:36PM on Sep 6th 2007 by Gregory D. Pawelski

4. Looks like there are a couple of individuals who like their New Age therapies (actually newage, rhymes with sewage), because the only thing they can do to prove their effectiveness is to come down hard on Barrett. This is meaningless. The positve data, or lack thereof in this case, on newage "therapies" for cancer doesn't exist.

K. Collins should continue to use Quackwatch. If the two above would actually read an entire article over at Quackwatch, then visit the studies footnoted, they may change their mind.

(Better yet, how about posting some positive data here.)

But, perhaps they won't change their minds. Newage fundamentalists are difficult to treat.

Posted at 6:21PM on Sep 6th 2007 by hchcec

5. You said, "Sep 6th 2007 6:20PM Looks like there are a couple of individuals who like their New Age therapies (actually newage, rhymes with sewage), because the only thing they can do to prove their effectiveness is to come down hard on Barrett. This is meaningless. The positve data, or lack thereof in this case, on newage "therapies" for cancer doesn't exist.

K. Collins should continue to use Quackwatch. If the two above would actually read an entire article over at Quackwatch, then visit the studies footnoted, they may change their mind. (Better yet, how about posting some positive data here.)But, perhaps they won't change their minds. Newage fundamentalists are difficult to treat."

A few counter points to your attack on me and others.

First of all as a clinic manager and along with my wife who is a physician and college professor and who advises and educates me on certain points above my pointy little head, I don't think I qualify as a new age fundamentalist.

At our clinic we do our best to help the patient with all of their needs an we refer out as medically necessary. As we are well respected in medical circles in the area I can only assume that the medical establishment doesn't consider us fundamentalists. But I'm sure that you know better[ahem - that was sarcasm in case you missed it].

Second, we have reviewed quackwatch, just like we review any source that is brought to us for an opinion by our patients. We became aware of this website years ago when a patient asked about it and were not impressed by it in any way. Yes, "Dr." Barrett sites reliable sources at times, but the spin he puts on each and every article is not reliable and his funding sources are very problematic. I would not be going to far out of line to say that he has a vested interest in his "professional" opinion. As for his credentials, well they speak for themselves. Find another source if you want unvarnished opinions or keep reading it. Frankly I find it as realiable a source of information as Fox News.

Finally, every responsible professional should be aware of the strengths and weeknesses of their own profession. The fact is that allopaths are excellent at diagnosis and emergency treatment but not at their best at chronic and paliative care.

Individual patients should be given individual treatments and to preemptively discredit any legitimately trained branch of medical care is foolish are best. Different conditions demand different treatments and approaches and what works with one patient may not with another. Such is the practice and art of medicine.

As a patient, if I broke my leg I would not go and see a homeopath. Recently I was in a car crash, and yes, I went to an emergency room. I am consulting with a neurosurgery doc, but I am also seeing a chiropractor, massage therapist, acupuncturist, and physical rehab person. Post accident, while still in the ER I recieved Frequency Specific Microcurrent Therapy as preliminary studies here, in Australia, and in the EU seem to indicate that therapy within 4 hours of trauma can shorten soft tissue healing times by 50%. This is not standard of care for ER's. Maybe it should be.

My point in all of this is don't attack what you don't know. Kristina Collins sited a thoroughly discreditied source as reliable. I pointed this out. She ignored it. Who, by your definition, is the fundamentalist on this point?

Jeff Friesen.


BTW - I publish my name and stand by my comments for good or ill as does Kristina, who, I should point out, I agree with on most things with the exception of quackwatch. You however seem content to publish under a nom de plume and attack those you don't agree with. Care to come clean? You don't work for Barrrett do you?

Posted at 9:05AM on Sep 7th 2007 by jeff Friesen

6. Jeff

I believe hchcec knows she is being unethical and unprofessional. I believe she will not come clean.

Posted at 4:50PM on Sep 9th 2007 by Gregory D. Pawelski

7. "I keep seeing "Dr." Collins"
Nice arrogant comment there Jeff.

And the appeal to authority? The reference to newage doc Weil and his physician wife is a logical fallacy. Just because they have MDs behind their names is meaningless in the face of the facts that newage therapies are unproven to change the course of cancer.

Who's unethical when they desire to take your money, tell you homeopathy works, and inform you that if it doesn't work that it was not God's plan for you?

For Pawelski et al, a new definition of professionalism will include the newage.

The seething anger in Friesen's first post and the unrelenting fearmongering by the internet's #1 chemotherapy fearmnonger, Mr. P. would make anyone who takes them on be a bit shy about publishing a name.

Ask yourself why they focus on my name and not the facts? It's the epitome of the red herring logical fallacy.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/redherrf.html

Posted at 6:00PM on Sep 9th 2007 by hchcec

8. One of the unique things about cancer is that there's no "correct" therapy. Nothing works for everybody. Who knows why new age treatments work for some people. The important thing is that they do--for some people. After my cancer I was so depleted that I had pneumonia for weeks. No amount of antibiotics and "conventional" therapies worked. Then I tried a potent concoction of Chinese herbal remedies, and felt fit as a fiddle in truly remarkable time. Later, my doctor was actually angry at me for my recovery, as if my feeling better was somehow less valid because it wasn't achieved by conventional means.

It's easy to brand "new age" therapies as quackery and lump them all with the crystals-and-chant crowd. But the main reason that people are drawn to them is that there is actual, demonstrable hope that they work--for some people. They may not be as effective in many cases as conventional treatments, but the fact that they work for some warrants as much legitimate investigation as it does debunking.

Oh, and may I add that another reason many people seek alternative treatments is that conventional medicine is increasingly becoming a luxury product and more and more people are priced out. If you had no insurance, your cancer had taken your savings and you didn't have the thousand dollars for your doctor (as happened to me)--but you had $24.95 for a package if homeopathic hope, what would you do? Duh.

Regards,
Richard Day Gore

Posted at 6:05AM on Sep 10th 2007 by richard day gore

9. Unfortunately, this is what one hears all too often from the newage crowd: "It worked for someone I know. I read somewhere that there are studies that show it is helpful. It doesn't harm you, so why not try it? That will be $75."

As far as pneumonia is concerned, viral pneumonia can weaken the immune system, so that bacteria may increase in number leading one to get bacterial pneumonia. Antibiotics do not treat viral pneumonia. They can help prevent a bacterial superinfection. That is why they are often given and do save lives.

There are no convential therapies specifically for viral pneumonia. Antivirals may shorten the duration, but rest and fluids are most often the treatment. And, yes, all people feel crappy with viral pneumonia for weeks. Viral pneumonia can naturally continue for 2 to 4 weeks. Recovery from viral pneumonia is gradual but complete.

(If your doctor was truly angry at your because you recovered, you better check to see if he took out a life insurance policy on you without you knowing. ;-))

Newage therapy vs. conventional therapy. It doesn't matter. It's what works. Show me the studies. Daily, this blog features studies in the news. You can add links to other studies when you make comments. I may look at those links, study the results, and comment back. Here's a link on how to interpret a study:

http://afic.org/How%20to%20Understand%20and%20Interpret%20Food%20and%20Health-Related%20Scientific%20Studies.htm

It's critically important we know how to interpret scientific evidence, rather than pay billions as we do here in the U.S. for unproven therapies and false hope.

Posted at 2:02PM on Sep 10th 2007 by hchcec

10. It's the same old "spin." Because a study does not have a prospective randomized clinical trial, there is no justification for it.

Pharma-based medicine is a refuge for robots whose batteries are dangerously low on power. It is a default function like "tilt" on a pinball machine. Like Quackwatch and others, there are a certain number of "allrightnicks" who have appointed themselves the arbiters of truth. It's just that you aren't allowed to play in their sandbox!

Medicine is a personalized service, one built around the uniqueness of each patient and the skilled physician's ability to design care accordingly. Sure, one can read scientific literature and understand statistics, but does it help them to understand how that should influence the treatment of the individual?

The future of cancer therapy needs to be thought of "outside the box" with personalized treatments for individual patients, and will require a combination of novel diagnostics and therapeutics.

Until the controlled, randomized trial approach has delivered curative results with a high success rate, the choice of physicians to integrate promising insights and methods, remains an essential component of cancer treatment advocacy.

Posted at 12:48AM on Sep 11th 2007 by Gregory D. Pawelski